
Learn the Revision Total Knee Replacement: Second stage using PFC / MBT with metaphyseal sleeve and stem (Depuy) surgical technique with step by step instructions on OrthOracle. Our e-learning platform contains high resolution images and a certified CME of the Revision Total Knee Replacement: Second stage using PFC / MBT with metaphyseal sleeve and stem (Depuy) surgical procedure.
This case shows the steps required to complete the second stage revision of an infected total knee replacement.
At the first stage, infected tissue was resected and a commercial antibiotic-loaded cement spacer was inserted.
This second stage takes the reader through the steps required to prepare the joint to receive the revision implant and also documents the reasoning for the revisions implants chosen and the detailed method of how to assemble and insert them.
With the increasing complexity of both infected revision surgery and the implants required to overcome the significant challenges associated with revision knee replacement, this technique goes some significant way to help the surgeon familiarise themselves with the steps required, enabling more efficient and productive surgery.
This operation was performed by Mr Richard Baker FRCS (TR & Orth) to whom I’m most grateful for the photographs.
The following report is of a mobile bearing tray (MBT), a Porocoat metaphyseal sleeve, a PFC femoral component and 2 uncemented stems, all manufactured by DePuy. I use the PFC as my primary TKA and this revision system is an extension of that family. The MBT system can articulate with either PFC or TC3 femoral components (very useful if only one component needs revising).
I also am a conservative convert to use of the metaphyseal sleeve, in limited circumstances. Metaphyseal sleeves and metaphyseal cones have developed to cope with the advent of more complex revision surgery.
In my opinion, there are two main philosophies when it comes to these void fillers and there is some overlap. Both are impacted into the bone of the tibia in an uncemented fashion. Depending on the company and the metallic properties, there is either bony ongrowth or ingrowth. Classically sleeves have been used for smaller bone voids and cones for larger defects.
A sleeve is implant specific and is attached to the tibial tray (usually via a mortise taper). A cone is used as a void filler but retains a larger central aperture, the tibial tray (and usually) a tibial stem are cemented into the metaphyseal cone. Both have their advantages and disadvantages but I personally prefer the tibial tray to be firmly attached to the tibial tray. This system is used on the MBT TKA by Depuy.
The following associated OrthOracle techniques will also be of interest to readers of this technique:
PFC Total knee replacement (De Puy-Synthes)
First Stage Revision Total Knee Replacement for Acute Prosthetic Joint Infection (Zimmer Biomet articulating spacer)
Revision total Knee Replacement- Legion CCK (Smith & Nephew)
Revision total Knee Replacement- Legion Rotating Hinged Knee ( Smith & Nephew)
Sleeved Total Knee Replacement for Tibial Plateau Fracture (MBT DePuy)

INDICATIONS
When is a two-stage procedure better than a single-stage for infection is question that keeps getting asked. The literature is full of articles and meta-analyses, yet no definitive answer is apparent. This fact simply reflects the nature and complexity of the disease. Classical teaching is that a single-stage revision has a slightly worse endpoint regarding recurrent infection but the trade off is against an improved morbidity with a single operation being performed.
My approach is that if the bacteria and its antibiotic sensitivity profile is known, and favourable, and the patient is not immunocompromised then a single-stage revision for infection should be strongly considered.
Unfortunately, in my practice, increasing patient co-morbidities, patients with multiple previous infection control surgeries and polymicrobial infection with multiple drug resistance precludes single-stage revisions in many instances
SYMPTOMS & EXAMINATION
Patients coming up for the second stage are well known to the operating surgeon. Pain should have significantly decreased and the joint should be stable and ‘cold.’ The wound should have healed with no clinical signs of infection.
IMAGING
The imaging for these cases is usually very straight forward. A simple radiograph will usually suffice and is taken to ensure that there has been no further bone loss and that the temporary spacer remains intact (although a fracture of the spacer is not necessarily an indication for urgent surgery).
Prior to the second stage surgery, the inflammatory markers (ESR / CRP and WCC) should have returned to normal. In cases where clinically the infection is irradicated but the inflammatory markers remain elevated (rheumatoid/autoimmune patients for example), a repeat aspiration is required.
NON-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
Occasionally (but more often than is probably appreciated) the second stage is not required. In a review of our local database, nearly 9% of two-stage procedures do not proceed to second stage. This mostly reflects the cohort of patients in a tertiary referral centre but is related to mortality, patient fitness for surgery and patient wishes.
I do not think that a knee temporary spacer would survive long term but I do have a ‘not insignificant’ cohort of patients who have had first stage temporary implants for many years who do not want their second stage. Hence the question – why weren’t these cases done as single stages…
CONTRAINDICATIONS
Obvious contraindications include ongoing infection. If symptoms or inflammatory markers are worsening the patient still may need surgery but this may be a repeat first stage. Although this can feel like a failure, do not put it off. The clinical picture needs resolution.
Other contraindications include patient wishes and frailty.

Kit required includes;
Standard revision kit – Reamers / osteotomes etc.
MBT revision kit
PFC / TC3 revision kit
The patient needs to be consented fully including the risk of ‘non-implantation,’ i.e. unable to proceed with the second stage as a pocket of infection is found during surgery.
Post-operative HDU / Extended Recovery should be considered depending on local set-up.

In our institution patients will go to HDU, usually for 1 night. Bloods are checked that evening as well as first thing in the morning.
Early physiotherapy is mandatory with full weight-bearing.
It is imperative to check the microbiology results of the 5 samples taken during the second stage.
Thromboprophylaxis until sufficiently mobile. This still remains controversial and there is no UK national guideline. We give 10 days of rivoroxaban post-discharge if uncomplicated. (Deltaparin whilst in hospital).

Wound Healing Problems in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Garbedian et al Orthopedics, 2011, Vol.34(9), pp.516-518.
Stem Fixation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Indications, Stem Dimensions, and Fixation Methods. Kang et al Knee Surg Relat Res 2018;30(3):187-192.
The anatomical tibial axis reliable rotational orientation in knee replacement. Cobb J et al JBJS (Br) 2008:90B
The use of MBT trays with metaphyseal sleeves is a relatively new development in revision surgery. There is no substantive data looking at mid to long term outcome but the MBT system may decrease high torsional stresses at the implant / bone interface in the tibia.
A Mobile-bearing Knee Prosthesis Can Reduce Strain at the Proximal Tibia. Bottlang, Michael; Erne, Oliver; Lacatusu, Elvis; Sommers, Mark; Kessler, Oliver. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2006:447;105-111
MBT knee replacements in my opinion should not be used as a routine in primary surgery (the results appear inferior in the NJR) but they do have a role in the revision setting. (https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2016th%20Annual%20Report%202019.pdf)
The use of metaphyseal sleeves is also increasing. Again no long term results are available but promising mid-term results are available. As I stated earlier, in my opinion, the indication for use of sleeves in both the femur and the tibia is relatively limited to those with large contained or moderate to large uncontained defects. They should not be used routinely.
Cementless Metaphyseal Sleeves Used for Large Tibial Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Gerald Alexander; Thomas Bernasek; Richard Crank; George Haidukewych. The Journal of Arthroplasty. Vol 28, 2013, Pages 604-607
Porous-Coated Metaphyseal Sleeves for Severe Femoral and Tibial Bone Loss in Revision TKA. Tyler Watters; John Martin; Daniel Levy; Charlie Yang; Raymond Kim; Douglas Dennis. The Journal of Arthroplasty Vol 32, 2017, Pages 3468-3473.
Reference
- orthoracle.com

























































































